Global warming continues as greenhouse gas grows

June 28, 2011
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID , AP Science Writer

(AP) -- A study released Tuesday says the world's climate is not only continuing to warm, it's adding greenhouse gases even faster than in the past.

In fact it's been more than 300 months since the average global average temperature was below average.

The annual State of the Climate report said 2010 was tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record, worldwide and added that the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide increased faster than it has in recent decades.

Peter Thorne of North Carolina's Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites called the finding "a clear and unmistakable signal from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans.'

Related Stories

Bonn study shows: Since 1880 climate gases have caused just under half of global warming
In the last 120 years the average global temperature has risen by 0.7 degrees. Over the same period the carbon dioxide concentration ...

Now that scientists have reached a consensus that carbon dioxide emissions from human activities are the major cause of global warming, the next question is: How can we stop it" Can we just cut back on carbon, or do we need ...

(PhysOrg.com) -- Professor Charles Greene asserts in the journal Oceanography that the world's policymakers have underestimated the potential dangerous impacts that man-made climate change will have on society.

Recommended for you

At the end of the Pleistocene period, approximately 12,800 years ago—give or take a few centuries—a cosmic impact triggered an abrupt cooling episode that earth scientists refer to as the Younger Dryas.

In a new assessment of nine state-of-the-art climate model simulations provided by major international modeling centers, Michael Rawlins at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and colleagues found broad disagreement in ...

New research confirms that the land under the Chesapeake Bay is sinking rapidly and projects that Washington, D.C., could drop by six or more inches in the next century—adding to the problems of sea-level rise.

The world's deserts may be storing some of the climate-changing carbon dioxide emitted by human activities, a new study suggests. Massive aquifers underneath deserts could hold more carbon than all the plants on land, according ...

Wildfires in California's fabled Sierra Nevada mountain range are increasingly burning high-elevation forests, which historically have seldom burned, reports a team of researchers led by the John Muir Institute of the Environment ...

72 comments

So, when do the skeptics chime in to say that the earth is actually cooling? Last time ted208 claimed we were moving toward an ice-age (based on his biased sampling of data). Instead, this article and the article, today, talking about the loss of the Greenland glaciers are adding to our knowledge about the warming of the Earth and the effects of that warming.

I'm sure they will chime in soon. Let's enjoy the peaceful quiet while we can. I do wish the article had more substance, though. It would be reassuring to know how much this year's increase is, the stats compare to previous years, and what the actual numbers are.

warming isnt evidence of CAGW, its just evidence of warming. There is no empirical link between CO2 and the climate, just 'post normal science' which is another name for guesstimation with delusions of grandeur. Also all these data sets are put together by activist post-normal-scientists, so they lack credibility. I mean seriously, the report is put together by the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites, vested interest much?

And its hilarious to claim 2005 or 2010 were the hottest years when the NOAA data shows unequivocally that 1998 was way hotter: http://www.drroys...ratures/This ridiculous result is based on modelling not measurement.

Well, let's look at Venus as an example, where temperatures are well over 400 degrees celcius due to a runaway GREENHOUSE EFFECT. And Venus's atmosphere consists of Carbon Dioxide, which explains its extreme temperature.

Well, let's look at Venus as an example, where temperatures are well over 400 degrees celcius due to a runaway GREENHOUSE EFFECT. And Venus's atmosphere consists of Carbon Dioxide, which explains its extreme temperature.

@Caliban - Was there a particular reason for the 1 vote? Or do you disagree with the fact that Venus's atmosphere which is about 90% Carbon Dioxide has any influence over the planet's hellish conditions? What I find odd is that you've downrated my comment, and you rated VD's comment a 5, and we're basically making the same point.

Ah Ha - absolute proof that information can travel faster than light and validating of my comment on deduction and extrapolation allowing information to be acquired faster than light can convey.

Two days ago I used an example that Vendi would call someone a Tard within the next month and only now does light convey the confirmation BUT I had the information (knew) well before the light arrived.

Sinister - just your lack of proof regarding CO2 as a cause rather than perhaps an effect of warming in Venus atmosphere

The causal loop can probably traced back when Venusian plate tectonics ceased to operate, which resulted in CO2 from volcanic emissions to accumulate in the atmosphere (not being able to be recycled, as on Earth). This growing accumulation eventually caused the runaway greenhouse effect we see today. But also, without plate tectonics Venus cannot dissipate heat from its mantle easily.

Therefore, CO2 isn't the only contributor to the planet's current conditions.

reduced plate tectonics and the thermal inertia of a much denser atmosphere and constant cloud cover over Venus coupled with a higher level of solar radiation contribute how much to the surface temperature?

Hey, lets not consider all the factors ... just trot out the CO2 mantra.

Global cooling was a hypothesis as a result of broken ocean currents, because of increased or decreased salinity (i forgot).

Luckily we know better... the balance of the planet is getting worse, its getting hotter and colder, harsher winters, harsher summers, one day its 10 degrees the next day its 30 degrees -celcius.It means the sinks/buffers of the planet are "sick/broken", the ocean, forests, the air etc. are all "sick".

The "greenhouse" effect on Venus is caused by the atmosphere being about 100 times as dense as Earth's atmosphere. No matter what gases it was composed of it would still have the same effect.

No, the Greenhouse Effect on Venus is the adverse result of its thick Carbon Dioxide atmosphere, as well as the fast moving Sulfuric Acid clouds that choke the planet. You're wrong. This is why Venus has hotter temperatures than Mercury, despite being further away from the Sun.

If the earth didn't have water vapor, its temperature would be much less.Water vapor is the most important gas to retain heat. But it cannot be easily modeled, it is not well mixed, therefore, its not a factor in the GCMs.

1) The story above incorrectly refers to this as a study. This is a non-peer reviewed monthly report done by the NCDC department within NOAA. This is not published in any journal.

2) From the first sentence of the first paragraph on the NOAA page:

In May 2011 the United States had dramatic shifts in regional temperatures, but overall was slightly cooler and wetter than normal

and from the first sentence of the second paragraph:

The average U.S. temperature in May was 60 degrees F (15.6 degrees C), which is 1.0 degrees F (0.6 degrees C) below the long-term (1901-2000) average

Global average for May and the previous two months was about .5 C above average for the century. That places it somewhere in the middle between average and record highs, and not in agreement with AGW theory which predicts accelerating temperature rise.

Note: the above is based on the GHCN temperature record. I personally believe the satellite records are better, such as UAH records.

BTW, the arctic ice people from NOAA just made corrections to their data and model. The result is that they downgraded the long term rate of Arctic ice loss by nearly half. With the PDO and AO both in a warm phase for the majority of the past 50 years, ice loss is not unexpeted. Now, with both the PDO and AO shifting to a prolonged cool phase, and the sun going into a possibly decades long grand minimum, we could be in for some really cold and hard times for the majority of the remainder of my lifetime. Western US and Canadian snow packs in the Rockies are already seeing the effects of a cooler Pacific Ocean. Expect the trends of both temperature and Sea level to level off and then decline over the next 20 years.

One more note about the GHCN temperature record: Initial results tend to be biased towards certain regions which are faster at reporting in. Some locations report quarterly or annually, so data in the GHCN series tends to be adjusted over time as late reporting and reporting errors are accounted for.

Long ago I resign myself to the fact that any attempted solution to an undeniable change in climate has to be a solution with incomplete and insufficient data. Fine. No problem.

Now I have to resign myself to the fact that incomplete and insufficient data supports a knowledge of an undeniable change in climate that predicts hot or cold. A prediction that effectively bars any solutions, or preparations to adapt.

The rate of loss went from 3.6 to 2.8, which means that it was 29% overstated before the latest update. I guess I overstated the change when I said nearly half, but it's still a big change. Sorry for the exageration.

My comments about the GHCN network are just common knowledge. You can look up details about the GHCN at many sources. NOAA/NCDC and WMO both have info about it I believe.

One more comment about the UofW ice estimates: They are based on a model that attempts to guess the thickness of the ice based on the extent of the ice. Everyone knows that isn't a great way to go about things, but it's the best we've got right now. That model will become obsolete soon though, since CryoSat-2 began collecting data back in October. CryoSat-1 exploded on launch, so we've never had any real measurements of total ice volume before. They just do spot checks a few times a year in a few places, but it is so dynamic that measuring ice thickness from on the ground is like trying to catch air in your hand. The whole northern ice cap moves around the Arctic Sea like an icecube in a cocktail glass, so measuring by spot checks is virtually meaningless.

Here is a link to an interactive site that lets you look over data from your choice of time intervals. Using the tool provides a rapid response to GSwift7s second source (Bastardi) by showing that the time interval he used as analogous to the present was, in fact, short and a small deviation compared with the temperature change over the past 30 years. You can use the tool for both Global and US changes. Bastardi used US as his metric not global.

As for the idea that the Earth will be cooling soon (30 years), that is a safe bet to make since most of us will not be here (although my grand kids will), Bastardi will certainly not be here. If change becomes a moving target with cooling just out of reach, there will never be any evidence that will convince those who say we will turn the corner in 15 years. Just like the prediction of the end of the world, you can just move the date.

Thank you both for the links. At work right now so i'll check them out later.

Again I want to emphasize that links rock! Its good to have a healthy conversation w/out the trolls.

Edit: @Rygg - if facts dont coincide with my worldview, i'll probably adjust my way of thinking. Unlike yourself where you'd just change the facts. Gswift7 is articulate/intelligent enough to have a decent conversation with. You are not neither. Cheers

The Bastardi piece is only talking about extreme weather events, and the fact that regional weather patterns similar to those we are seeing now have happened before in the US, independent of long term trends in temperature or ocean heat content. The point is that the recent spate of extreme weather is not unprecedented, and that relative conditions, not absolute conditions, tend to cause extreme weather events. Your NOAA page does not address any of the points Bastardi was making. To the contrary, your NOAA reference acts to further amplify his points, since prolonged periods of extreme weather have happened before, even in the absence of global warming trends. Your NOAA page does not even mention the PDO or AO or their effects on storm intensity. Maybe I'll look up the ACE records later, but I'm feeling too lazy right now.

I agree that Bastardi is talking about severe weather but he links it to the heating and cooling of the oceans. He also predicts cooling.

"If you knew about the climate and nation's weather the way I have to, you would see the links between what happened from 1925 to 1950 and what is going on now. During that time, we were in a warm version of the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic turned warm, and the weather went haywire."

"The Earth has been going through 30 years of a warm Pacific Ocean; that reversed in 2007 and, lo and behold, weather similar to the last time it happened showed up."

"...into what I referred to on national TV more than three years ago as "the Triple Crown of Cooling" and you have the recipe for what could be a rapid planetary cool-down beyond the forecast..."

Continued: As you can see from the comments he blames the bad weather on heating and cooling of the oceans. I have no problem with that, but he seems to compare the two time intervals (1925 - 1950 and 1970 - until now) and say they are very similar. What I was pointing out is that the two time intervals are not similar in magnitude or duration. Since the global oceanic heat contend does not extend to earlier than 1950, I have to rely on global temperatures (which are moderated by ocean temperatures over the longer term). In the interval from 1925 to 1950 you can see that there was a small excursion up in temperature rise but it was around 1940. Prior to that the anomaly was down. If it is the gradient he is excited about then he needs to look at the first and second derivatives of the temperatures and, even those, seems to be greater now. I just don't see his analogy of the two time intervals being similar.

What I was pointing out is that the two time intervals are not similar in magnitude or duration

You are still missing his point. He is saying that when the PDO and AO change phase together it causes a bout of extreme weather. It's not about total ocean heat content. It's about regional conditions relative to other nearby regional conditions. You are saying that the change in the early 1900's was small and short, and that ocean heat content records don't go back that far.

You are looking at the wrong metric. Here's a graph of what he is talking about:

@hush my friend, I'm sorry, I didn't use units. So the first line of this article states;

In fact it's been more than 300 months since the average global average temperature was below average.

So that is 300 months / 12 months/year = 25 years since there was a below normal average global temperature. Now that said, atmospheric CO2 levels are accelerating (due to developing countries bringing on new coal plants) and it is has been shown that global average temperatures lag behind, but track well with CO2 levels. Thus the "Hockey Stick" warning by Hansen and popularized by Gore is so frightening. I and many others find it as frightening that it's comparable to 6 mile asteroid striking the earth in 2025. The consequences of status quote are no less dangerous.

Solutions? I'm pessimistic given current climate of debate. Scientist have come to an agreement, as has the UN (mostly), but a few vocal opponents seem to keep the debate alive. No one wants to change.

Should global warming be considered as dangerous as an Asteroid strike on Earth? It took quite a long time before the theory extinction at the KT boundary was cause by a massive 6 mile diameter asteroid. Can you imagine how much CO2, was released into the air from all of the oil, natural gas, coal, vegetation and lava brought into the air by that asteroid?

How does that compare with today's CO2 levels? Also at what stage in ppm of CO2 do all of the feedback mechanisms start, like the release of methane gas from all of the melting permafrost mass?

Howhot: Thank you for the nice link. I, generally, agree with your view but do not, generally, agree with your extreme rhetoric. In this case, you have done a very good job of stating your view in a convincing and level headed way (not extreme at all). I want to thank you for making a very well thought out argument and providing a good link. By the way, it is oscillation, not Occultation, but that was a minor typo.

The following is a much better resource for understanding the PDO, and the other ocean cycles as well. After reading this page you will have a much better idea of what Bastardi is talking about. Bob Tisdale does a good job of explaining the difference between sea surface temp (SST) and PDO/ENSO/AO/etc. The link provided by howhot is a bit misleading and is more political than informative. Also note the link at the bottom of the following page, to the KNMI climate explorer. It is a fabulous tool.

Note the emphasis here, that temperature doesn't follow the PDO. Bastardi isn't saying that it does either. He's saying that it strengthens the instability in north america that causes severe weather when it swings from positive to negative. He's suggesting a transitional effect. I don't know if he's right or not, but it could be credible from looking at the data.

Here's another good page for PDO information. Notice the reversal of wind vectors between positive and negative phases. What Bastardi is talking about is on the negative phase map. If you look at the temps and wind direction off the US northwest coast, it is cool and blowing inland. Then notice the warm area in the Gulf of Mexico. Add those two together and you get tornados in the Kansas. Also notice that what is called the positive phase is dominated by cooler SST's in the northern pacific rather than warmer.

The source here is the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean. Probably more reliable than Climate Watch.

Also note that the PDO is not a direct measurement of any one variable, and it does not always represent the general state of the Pacific Ocean. The PDO is only a statistically generated index based on certain factors in certain locations, chosen by the people who monitor them (weather forcasters) because it helps them to predict the weather.

lol, if you look up the source of the graph they used on howhot's Climate Watch reference, the original description is as follows:

Updated standardized values for the PDO index, derived as the leading PC of monthly SST anomalies in the North Pacific Ocean, poleward of 20N. The monthly mean global average SST anomalies are removed to separate this pattern of variability from any global warming signal that may be present in the data

They deliberately removed the portion of the data that shows the relationship to the warming trend. You see the term "detrended" used a lot in climate science these days.

Thoughtful input extending my understanding. Thks to all.Howhot:The message:'Act Now', is a message of urgency. The message calls for solutions.

"Solutions? I'm pessimistic given current climate of debate. Scientist have come to an agreement, as has the UN (mostly), but a few vocal opponents seem to keep the debate alive.No one wants to change." - Howhot

The whole debate skirts with the psychological disposition of everyone. As if, we only have a one-shot-deal to deal with a pending potential containing more than one outcome.

As if asking, is CO2 the 'culprit of culprits'? As if asking, if CO2 is not the 'culprit of culprits' what other recourses turns the tide?

The 'Act Now' message is not helpful. Is there such a thing as 'confident levels' for solutions? Maybe it is not helpful to talk about the 'psychological dispositions' of 'solutions' bearing the weight of human existence or extinction. To which I disagree. I believe the more confidence assigned any solution the better.

GSwift7: Those were great references. I learned a lot from them and I appreciate your sharing them. I will make one comment on your observations. You seem to think that "detrending" is a malicious trick. It actually is a trick, in the sense of being an accepted mathematical method that is a clever way to remove trend bias from noisy data. An example of the way it is used in my area is to remove the upward or downward trend in the temperature of a massive furnace to look at the behavior of a near-steady-state sample. The key is the "near-steady-state" part of the boundary conditions. Since the Earth is near steady state (first and second derivatives not changing quickly) this technique can normally be applied to remove slow trends. I have not looked closely enough at the data to say it is a valid approach, but it is not unusual to use the mathematical method. If the trend were included it could be attacked for keeping the trend bias.

Various causes have been postulated for climate change. From 1895/7 to 2007 there is 0.85 correlation of global temperature with oceanic oscillations; 0.57 with solar intensity fluctuations; and 0.43 correlation with CO2 concentration. From 1987 to 2007 there is a 0.02 correlation of global temperature with CO2 concentration.

The preceding comments address a very short time period. Recent phases of warm and cool periods last about 25 to 30 years. The late 30s were warn, the 70s were cool, 1998 was warm. We are still recovering from the Little Ice Age of 1350 to 1850 when millions died form the cold. Maybe it will get as warm as the Medieval, Roman, Minoan, or other warm periods in the last 12,000 years, when humanity thrived. Maybe sea level will rise as high as it has before in the sa

Ideologues promoting population control, one world government, social justice, redistribution of wealth (poverty), and greedy researchers and capitalist have adopted the AGW alarmist agenda.Hush1 refers to a search for a solution. One solution: spend $8 quadrillion to forestall global warming by 1 degree. http://wattsupwit...re-39048

XQZME: Did you bother to read any of the 928 articles listed? I started through some of them and they actually all support AGW, they just list uncertainties (I guess that the compiler considers any uncertainty to be refutation). As for heat leading CO2, that is one of the things that is alarming in that in nature it does, usually, go that way. Presently we are forcing instead of following. Anyone who does not understand that concept has not read much other than Watt and FoxNews.

Not at all. It is necessary to understand what it means when they do that though. The way howhot's reference site used the graph above was not honest, since they were using a detrended graph to show the lack of a trend. You can't take temperature out of a graph and then claim that it doesn't match the temperature graph. Duh.

The detrended graph isn't a trick. It's honest science, and usefull for the purpose it was intended. For what climatewatch was trying to show, they should have been using a graph that included the sea surface temperatures, not the detrended version of the data. Garbage in, garbage out. Climatewatch is just a blog though, so you've gotta always watch what you read in a blog. Then, since they left out the caption which said that it was detrened, it makes it hard for readers to spot the error. On purpose, probably.

If science is bias free, then the solutions science offers is bias free.We are ready for and accept any change if we believe this

It is never that clear. Here's an example: Forest fires. Burn the underbrush every few years and you prevent big fires every 50 years. Good deal, right? Only then you realize that the big fires are essential for certain trees, and also for killing off beetles and other parasites which survive the small fires in the canopy. But if you allow the big fires, then you risk loss of human life and property. Similar situation with flood control. The answeres aren't always as easy as defining the problem. In terms of co2 it's just as hard. If you regulate co2 in the US it will have a tiny effect. If you regulate it in India, then even more people will die of hunger and disease there. What is the least of several evils? Do we have the right to decide for the poor people of the world, when they are the ones who pay the biggest price?

Stop debating this as though it is a matter of science. It is an ideological push and should be resisted as such.

The "green" power faction is like any other usurper party to seize the destiny of humanity for its own perverted gain. The remarkable danger of this party is that it hides behind politicized "science" and requires us to submit to a belief system as justification for laws that harm the people.

Their laws will inevitably restrain the liberty of all except the party elite, while redirecting the wealth and production of our lives to themselves so they may live as robber-kings.

The temptation of absolute power has become irresistible to these destroyers of human liberty, and they are rushing the lines.

To those who mindlessly assault this forum on behalf of these usurpers, why do you hate your own race so much that you assist your enemies? They will not be your friend when they come to power, so where will you be for all your help to them?

"While climate change is a major threat, more research is required before society attempts global geoengineering solutions," - Analysis by Simone Tilmes of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo."

Clarity. Again. O.k.

Besides continuing research, what do we want? The will to change is universal. The universal will is not unanimous.

You're not saying anything new to me, hush1. Climate change is happening. The politics of some posters here, and on the internet in general is the problem. Most of that commentary, when investigated, goes directly back to either talk radio, or misinformation campaigns funded by special interests like the Koch brothers or the Chamber of COmmerce.

@hush, You have a really good argument going; to sum up we all agree there is a warming trend causing climate change that is impacting in some environments. You seem to be asking for some geo-engineering efforts to mitigate climate change by global climate change.

Actually, more research is a very realist solution as there needs to be some thought placed in that field on how to deal with global environmental issues. Some that I've read about that are interesting are making concrete that sequesters CO2.The best hope would be to bio-engineer a super diatom that uses twice the CO2 of an ordinary diatom.

Human intervention really needs to be made on the supply side of CO2. After all, it is WE that are the culprits in the release of so much CO2 all at once! An unfortunately our side (the good side IMHO) can not seem to make an argument that republicans (aka right fringe) just won't reject.

So given that stalemate and lack of logic in the discourse, there is no solution.

@G7, you mention Greenpeace, WWF and carbon traders as if they are a bad thing. Really, what evil has any one of those groups caused? List them please so we can arrest them and put them on trial!*? Sarcasm. Greenpeace? They are trying to stop Whale killers. WWF (not the wrestlers I gather) World Wildlife Fund have been trying to save animals by having areas designated wild life refuge areas.

Lastly Carbon Traders? Capitalists in the truest sense of the word and the builder of a cap and trade model for engineering a controllable model sustainable growth in non-renewable energies.